Misty water-colored memories of the recalls that were

Jud Lounsbury, former flak for former Senator Russ Feingold, claims Governor Scott Walker must be lying about not remembering if he signed the recall petitions to recall Senator Herb Kohl and Feingold over partial birth abortion in 1997. Of course, Lounsbury is having a hard time remembering 1997, too.

And, because Walker was at these events with Neumann, the issue of partial birth abortion and Feingold’s alleged support of it was the focus of Walker’s speeches. My specific recollection is that Walker said, on multiple occasions, something in the vein of: We came up a little short with the recall effort, but that effort was not a wasted effort. History will remember it as the first step in Feingold’s 1998 defeat.

“Something in the vein of…” is a rather gauzy look into an out-of-focus wayback machine. If Lounsbury cannot even remember what was said, how is that evidence of anything? If Lounsbury can’t remember what Walker said, even though he was being paid to do so at the time, why is not possible that Walker does not remember what happened earlier in the year?

What makes it even more laughable is Lounsbury’s claim that the recall petition drive, “the biggest pro-life event in Wisconsin history.” Now I know Lounsbury’s memory is fuzzy because most pro-life Republicans in Wisconsin can point to far bigger pro-life events in Wisconsin’s history, and I’ll bet damn few remember the petition drive.

Was Lounsbury out of state during the pro-life demonstrations in 1992?

Of course, I remember the recall petition drive because I was active in politics back then, too. At least, I remember the petition drive because Democrats are reminding us. Otherwise I had completely forgotten about it.

What I remember is that I had mixed feelings about the recall petitions at the time because I didn’t think they would succeed, I questioned whether it was allowed under the Constitution to recall a federal office holder, and I had the feeling at the time the whole thing was just to cook up a list for Congressman Mark Neumann to use against Feingold. On the other hand, partial birth abortion, and Senator Feingold’s particularly evil defense of the practice, might have been enough to sway me to sign the recall petition.

I know a petition was circulated near me at an event. I know it was handed to me to sign. I can honestly say I have no idea whether or not I signed the petition. I doubt anyone I knew back then could tell you whether or not I signed the petition. The people who were in the room probably could not tell you. My girlfriend at the time probably could not tell you. My wife, the Lovely Doreen from Waukesha who I met later that year, probably doesn’t remember if I signed that petition.

So guess what? I don’t find it all thayt shocking that Walker can’t remember if he signed a petition 15 years ago, because I can’t either. And Lounsbury can’t remember what happened 15 years ago, so why is he even talking like he does remember?

Feingold’s speech was Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” caught on video for everyone to see.

On the other hand, Feingold was up for re-election in 1998, and few of us believed that he would hold on to win. Hard to justify signing a recall petition when the target is going to be thrown out by the voters anyway. (Unfortunately, sometimes the voting public is wrong.)

The other recall that supporters of the current recall point to is the infamous Milwaukee County pension scandal recalls. Supposedly Walker is being a hypocrite (which is always the worst sin according to the Left) because his rise in Milwaukee County was the result of the recalls. Bruce Murphy, now with Urban Milwaukee, is the latest to champion this theory.

Funny. When the Milwaukee County pension scandal broke, it involved just one issue. Yet the Journal Sentinel ran an orgy of front page stories, hammering Milwaukee County Executive F. Thomas Ament and the Milwaukee County Board unrelentingly for months. A recall effort was launched against Ament (who resigned rather than get thrown out) and nine or ten supervisors (seven were successfully recalled). None of these politicians were accused of misconduct in office (which Vos and the Journal Sentinel believe should be the only possible reason to recall a politician from office).

Murphy adds:

Indeed, it was the demise of Ament which led directly to Walker’s election to county executive, and gave him the platform to run for governor. Walker was once a big fan of recalls. Now he decries their impact on Wisconsin.

Far be it from me to lecture Murphy on the Milwaukee County pension scandal, the story he broke. However, what Murphy does not mention is that the recalled politicians involved, and Milwaukee County Thomas Ament who resigned rather than be recalled, were the personal beneficiaries of the change in the pension policy. They became wealthy at the taxpayers’ expense, and Milwaukee County still has not recovered from the corruption in the Courthouse. Those would be the extraordinary circumstances under which most of us would support having recall elections.

The circumstances of both recalls are a far cry from the current recall situation we’re facing today. In the case of Feingold, there was a fundamental question whether his extreme support for legalized infanticide made him fit for public office, and whether that issue could wait until his eventual defeat. In the case of Ament and the public supervisors, it was a question of corruption of the public officials involved personally benefitting from a change in the law that would harm Milwaukee County for years to come.

The purpose of the recall now is… wait a second. The Democrats are changing their minds again.

Hey Jim, I assume you’re just carried away with your theme and not trying to distort what I wrote, but my point was that a law that limited recalls only to misconduct in office wouldn’t have allowed the recall of Milwaukee County officials.

I get that Bruce but there’s no sense mentioning Walker was in favor of a recall then if that was your only point. Instead you tried to make him sound hypocritical when it’s entirely possible to have been in favor of those recalls while still wishing that recalls were used only sparingly. Don’t minimize the importance of what you uncovered back then. It was a fundamentally different situation than the recalls now.

Hilarious… at the same time you call PBA “infanticide” you don’t have any problem that Walker can’t remember whether or not he backed a movement to recall a Senator that was for “infanticide.”

And, for what its worth, I don’t “like” abortion or PBA. I do think that both should be legal, however. For a very good reason: A very pro-life, very conservative, Republican member of my family had to get a “partial birth abortion” because she found out in her last trimester that her baby’s brain had developed outside her scull. It was a wrenching decision, but the doctors said the baby simply couldn’t live outside the womb and, more pressing, it was physically impossible to have the baby in a conventional child birth. A “partial birth abortion” was the safest and most logical option for her and that’s exactly what she did. Like the vast majority of “partial birth abortions,” the procedure was medically necessary and done in a very rare circumstance.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby’s head would slip out — that the baby was completely delivered — would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn’t answer the question. Let’s assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you’ve stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

The righteousness of the far right knows no bounds. You are convinced that dialogue only has one right, moral answer. And so your posting of the raw transcript doesn’t accomplish your goal. Santorum thinks he, and the certainty of his faith, allow him to make laws that force others to comply with his own narrow view of the tenets of his religion. Feingold thinks that the Constitution requires him to fight for a scenario in which the government defers private decisions about health care in a free country to its citizenry, aka, the free people. Both are legitimate viewpoints in a Republic. But I will proudly continue to fight for freedom, as Feingold has always done. I think most Catholics, and especially most Jesuits, are totally cool with that.

Sachin…your response here is the textbook example of how the political left tries to frame this whole debate.

The fundamental difference is that Santorum and every other pro-lifer respect the rights of the child. We respect life. The “sin”, if you want to call it that, is the arrogant view that individuals have the right to decide the fate of the unborn based simply on whether the child is wanted or not. Pro-lifers have a consistent view as to how the fetus should be treated…it should be safeguarded. Even a staunch pro-abortion woman who wants to have a child will do everything in her power to carry out a successful pregnancy (healthcare, dietary choices, physical well-being and care), yet if that same woman simply chooses she doesn’t want the child she wants the right to kill it. Who are we to decide which souls, which lives are worthy of existing and which are not?

eNews & Updates

Sign up to receive breaking news as well as receive other site updates!

Wiggypolls

What is the best part of Thanksgiving?

Family (17%, 1 Votes)

Thanking God (17%, 1 Votes)

Watching football (17%, 1 Votes)

Answering online polls (17%, 1 Votes)

Cranberries, because Wisconsin, dammit (17%, 1 Votes)

Wine, more wine (17%, 1 Votes)

Tryptophan (0%, 0 Votes)

Listening to someone drone on how they cooked a turkey in a stone oven they hand built in their backyard (0%, 0 Votes)